CIT v. Triumala Bricks and Tiles Factory

217 ITR 547High Court1996#23787 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing CIT v. Triumala Bricks and Tiles Factory

WELSPUN CORP LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3890/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)

…reatment as capital was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 87. 8.2.11 The Andhra Pradesh High Court following the above decision held in the case of CIT v. Tirumala Bricks & Tiles Factory [1996] 217 ITR 547 that if the subsidy granted is in the nature of amounts for setting up of the plant or for expansion of the plant, then the same would be a capital receipt. The refund of excise duty received by the assessee from the Excise Department was capital receipt not amounting to income of the assessee and since it was not an income, it was not covered by…

HYUNDAI CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1766/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1766/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hyundai Construction Equipment India Vs. Acit, Private Limited, Circle-9, Plot No.A/2, Chakan, Midc, Pune Phase Ii, Khalumbre, Chakan-Talegaon Road, Chakan, Taluka Khed, Pune 410 501 Pan : Aabch8756Q Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)

…es Ltd. (2003) 88 ITD 273 (Mum) (SB) -Income Tax Officer Vs. The Thermodors Pvt. Ltd. (Unreported) -CIT Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) -CIT Vs. Elys Plastics Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 11 (Bom.) -CIT Vs. Tirumala Bricks and Tiles Factory (1996) 217 ITR 547 (AP) -CBDT Circular No.142 dated 1 August 1974 However, the Company for the purpose of its tax computation has offered the same to tax as a revenue receipt. The Company reserves its right to claim the above amount as capital receipt 5 Hyundai Construction Equipment India Pvt. Ltd., and hence not subject to tax, inter alia, in the event of any f…

M/S. SHIVALIK PRINTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4698/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkeyita No.4698/Del./2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S. Shivalik Prints Limited, Vs. Addl.Cit, Range 8, Flat No.3931, Block C – 9, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. (Pan : Aadcs6186R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anil Chopra FCA & V.K. Garg, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Senior DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ntive in the form of 10% capital subsidy for the processing machinery and also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. – 306 ITR 392 (SC) and also CIT vs. Triumala Bricks and Tiles Factory – 217 ITR 547 (AP). The AO observed that the case laws relied upon by the assessee are not applicable in the present case of the assessee on the facts of the case and after relying on certain judicial pronouncements, he treated the aforesaid amount of Rs.74,02,171/- as revenue receipt and added back to the income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee…